Research › Browse › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

1997 DIGILAW 480 (RAJ)

R. P. Gupta v. State of Rajasthan

1997-04-07

P.C.JAIN

body1997
Honble JAIN, J.–The petitioners have filed this petition purporting to be under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. against the order dated 30.3.92 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) cum Judicial Magistrate, Hanumangarh Junction in Cr. Case No. 2/92 whereby cognizance was ordered to be taken against the petitioners for offences under Sections 17 and 18 read with Sec. 29(1)(C) of the Insecticides Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). (2) The admitted facts are that there was a firm known as National Farm Chemicals and all the petitioners were partners of the above firm. At the relevant time, the firm was manufacturing various insecticides under the licence given under the above Act. The said firm was dissolved on 31.12.92. On 24.9.91 the Inspec- tor Insecticides inspected the firm of the petitioners. A sample was taken of the insecticides `monocrotophos in accordance with the provisions of the above Act in presence of the Munim of the firm Shri Jaluram. The sample was sealed and the same was sent to the Government Analyst. The report of the Government Analyst was received on 13.11.91 wherein it was said that the sample taken from the firm of the petitioners was misbranded. A notice regarding the result of the chemical examination of the above sample was duly given to the petitioners which was received by the latter on 20.11.91. Thereafter a show cause notice was issued by the inspector, Insecticides to the petitioners as to why a complaint be not lodged for contravention of the various provisions of the above Act. The petitioners submitted reply. Vide letter dated Dec. 20,1991 the petitioners firm requested the Assistant Director of Agriculture (Extension) for sending the other sample for che- mical examination to the Central Insecticides Laboratory for reanalysis. Thereupon the petitioners firm was informed that it could avail the right conferred by sub-sections (4) and (5) of Section 24 of the Act at the appropriate time. It may be mentioned here that the insecticides of which the sample was taken was manufactured in May, 1991 and it was to expire in April, 1992. The Assistant Director of Agriculture (Extention) Department of Agriculture, Hanumangarh Junction filed a complaint against the petitioners for offences under Sections 17 and 18 read with Section 29(1)(C) of the Act in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Hanumangarh (Rajasthan) on 28.3.92. The Assistant Director of Agriculture (Extention) Department of Agriculture, Hanumangarh Junction filed a complaint against the petitioners for offences under Sections 17 and 18 read with Section 29(1)(C) of the Act in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Hanumangarh (Rajasthan) on 28.3.92. The complaint was registered on 30.3.92 and the accused petitioners were summoned on 26.5.92 by the court. On that day only accused Devi- lal appeared and rest of the accused persons could not be served with notices. (3) Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that as soon as the petitioners was delivered the copy of the report, the petitioners vide letter dated 20.12.1991 intimated the Insecticides Inspector that they intend to adduce evidence in controversion of the report and that the second sample be sent to the Director of Central Insecticides Laboratory for reanalysis. The Inspector did not take any action and asked the petitioners to apply before the court. Learned counsel has submitted that the complaint was filed on 28.3.92 and it was registered on 30.3.92. The summons on accused petitioner Devilal was served on 17.4.92 and he was directed to appear before the learned Magistrate for the first time on 26.5.92. Upto 26.5.92 notices or summons on other accused petitioners had not been served. The expiry date of the above Insecticides was April, 1992 and Devilal petitioner was served only on 17.4.92 and the other petitioners could not be served upto 26.5.92. Hence the sample taken on 24.9.91 became useless and it was futile to send the second sample now to the Central Insecticides Laboratory. By filing complaint so late or by not effecting service on the petitioners before the expiry date of the product, the petitioners have been deprived of their valuable right conferred by Sec. 24(4) of the Act. The learned Magistrate, therefore, committed a grave error in taking cognizance on the complaint filed by the non-petitioner against the petitioners. Learned counsel has drawn my attention to the very valuable and statutory pro- visions conferred by Sec. 24(4) of the Act for safeguarding the interest of the person involved. Sec. 24(4) of the Act confers a right on the person involved to get the second sample analysed by the Central Insecticides Laboratory, Faridabad. By filing above complaint late or by taking no steps to serve the notices of the above complaint on the petitioners, the petitioners cannot now avail of the above valuable right. Sec. 24(4) of the Act confers a right on the person involved to get the second sample analysed by the Central Insecticides Laboratory, Faridabad. By filing above complaint late or by taking no steps to serve the notices of the above complaint on the petitioners, the petitioners cannot now avail of the above valuable right. Learned counsel has placed reliance on the decision of this court in M/s. Pesticides India & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan (1), U.S. Madan vs. State (2) and Hindustan Ciba Geigy Ltd. & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (3). (4) Learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that the accused could have exercised his right as conferred by Sec. 24(4) of the Act. If the report indicated that the sample was found not fit for analysis, the accused could have complained violation of the right conferred by Sec. 24(4) of the Act. (5) It was held by this court in Hindustan Ciba Geigy Ltd. & Ors. case (supra) that the right available to the accused under Sec. 24(4) of the Act would be defeated if the insecticide or out of which the sample was taken had expired before the com- plaint was filed or the summons were served on the accused. In such a case the continuance of such proceedings was held to be nothing but an abuse of the process of law, process of the court and, therefore, it was held that the proceedings could be quashed under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. In another case viz. US Madan (supra), in similar circumstances, it was held that since the petitioner has been deprived of the right to get the second sample reanalysed, to allow the trial of the petitioner would amount to the abuse of the process of the court. The proceedings were, therefore, quashed.The Apex Court in State of Punjab vs. National Organic Chemical Industries Ltd. (4), has held that if the appellant is deprived of his right to have the sample tested by the Central Insecticides Laboratory and adduce evidence of the report so given, it will amount to denial of the right conferred by Sec. 24(4) of the Act to the accused. The principles of natural justice are also violated. Hence the proceedings in respect of such a complaint in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate would be rendered fruitless. The principles of natural justice are also violated. Hence the proceedings in respect of such a complaint in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate would be rendered fruitless. (6) In the instant case since the complaint was filed late and before insecticides expired, the petitioners were not served with notices of the complaint. The accused was deprived of the right to have the sample retested by the Central Insecticides Laboratory. (7) For the above reasons, I allow this petition and quash the complaint as also the order of the learned Magistrate dated 30.3.92 taking cognizance qua the petitioners for the above offences.